Effect of a probiotic and an antibiotic on the mobilome of the porcine microbiota
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: To consider the growing health issues caused by antibiotic resistance from a “one health” perspective, the contribution of meat production needs to be addressed. While antibiotic resistance is naturally present in microbial communities, the treatment of farm animals with antibiotics causes an increase in antibiotic resistance genes (ARG) in the gut microbiome. Pigs are among the most prevalent animals in agriculture; therefore, reducing the prevalence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the pig gut microbiome could reduce the spread of antibiotic resistance. Probiotics are often studied as a way to modulate the microbiome and are, therefore, an interesting way to potentially decrease antibiotic resistance. Methods: To assess the efficacy of a probiotic to reduce the prevalence of ARGs in the pig microbiome, six pigs received either treatment with antibiotics (tylvalosin), probiotics ( Pediococcus acidilactici MA18/5M; Biopower ® PA), or a combination of both. Their faeces and ileal digesta were collected and DNA was extracted for whole genome shotgun sequencing. The reads were compared with taxonomy and ARG databases to identify the taxa and resistance genes in the samples. Results: The results showed that the ARG profiles in the faeces of the antibiotic and combination treatments were similar, and both were different from the profiles of the probiotic treatment ( p < 0.05). The effects of the treatments were different in the digesta and faeces. Many macrolide resistance genes were detected in a higher proportion in the microbiome of the pigs treated with antibiotics or the combination of probiotics and antibiotics. Resistance-carrying conjugative plasmids and horizontal transfer genes were also amplified in faeces samples for the antibiotic and combined treatments. There was no effect of treatment on the short chain fatty acid content in the digesta or the faeces. Conclusion: There is no positive effect of adding probiotics to an antibiotic treatment when these treatments are administered simultaneously.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".